Item Creation Caster Level

[Hypersmurf]

What page in the DMG is it on?

Under Creating Magic Items - you'll find similar text under the sections 'Creating Magic Weapons', 'Creating Magic Armor', 'Creating Rings', etc.

Plus, tmk, this rule did not exist in 3E.

Right. In 3E:

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require, and must pay any XP costs required for the spells. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item’s creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the character’s currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, any of the above listed guys can just hire a passing, 4th-level or better, appropriately trained bard, and have him provide the prerequisite spell. The minimum caster level, therefore, is 4th, and the bard just needs a couple gold per day to pay for the two weeks he'll be helping you, and then anyone can make the item at CL 4.

And, of course, whoever provides the XP needs a caster level of at least 4...

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And, of course, whoever provides the XP needs a caster level of at least 4...

Of course!

 

[KarinsDad]

Note, however, that a Bard cannot cast the Toungues spell until 4th-level, so the minimum price is 2 * 4 * 1,800gp, or 14,400gp.

This command activated item lasts for 40 minutes.

A cleric can craft it instead, but as you say, for a cleric, it's a 4th-level spell. The minimum a cleric can make such an item for is 4 * 7 * 1,800gp, or 50,400gp.

This command activated item lasts for 70 minutes.

A wizard can craft it instead, and for him it's a 3rd-level spell. The minimum a wizard can make such an item for is 3 * 5 * 1,800go, or 27,000gp.

This command activated item lasts for 50 minutes.

Now, here's the real catch ...

A bard can make such an item that lasts for as long as the cleric's version does. For him, it costs 2 * 7 * 1,800gp, or 25,200gp.

However, any of the above listed guys can just hire a passing, 4th-level or better, appropriately trained bard, and have him provide the prerequisite spell. The minimum caster level, therefore, is 4th, and the bard just needs a couple gold per day to pay for the two weeks he'll be helping you, and then anyone can make the item at CL 4.

Yup. I caught that in my earlier example yesterday of a Bard making a continuous Tongues item, but forgot already today (like I said, I'm on pain medication and and making mistakes easily).

Even so, an item of the same caster level with different spell levels would have that ratio of a lower spell level * 2 Market Value to higher spell level to Creating Cost.

In the case of Command Word Tongues, it is 2 * 2 to 4 (or 25,200 GP Bard cost * 2 = 50,400 Market Value to 50400 Cleric Creation Cost).


And, it messes up more for the Continuous Items. If the Headbank is Continuous Tongues instead of Command Word:

4 (SL) * 7 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 84000 GP Creation Cost Cleric

versus

2 (SL) * 4 (CL) * 2000 GP * 1.5 (10 mins per level spell) = 24000 GP Creation Cost Bard * 2 = 48,000 GP Market Value

The Cleric drops 60,000 GP more to create the item and it is worth 26,000 GP less than the Cleric paid. The only advantage is that it is +1 more to it's saving throw if it is unattended or if not using the attending users typically better saving throw.

He would definitely hire a Bard to help him on this.


And, there are quite a few spells with 2 levels difference: Anti-Magic Field, Charm Monster Mass, Control Water, Hold Monster, Obscure Object, Refuge, Regenerate, Scrying, Shout Greater, Speak With Animals, Speak With Plants, Stoneskin, Tongues, True Seeing, and Word of Recall. There are a lot more spells with only a single level difference.


Detect Poison and Read Magic for a Ranger (and Read Magic, Resistance, and Virtue for a Paladin) are also interesting since they cost a Ranger 8x what it costs a Cleric to make the same item due to CL being 4x higher and the spell being first level instead of zero level (i.e. double cost). Now, this does not apply to scrolls, potions, or wands (at 4x cost instead) because the DMG has specific cost tables for those, but it does apply to other items that require Caster Level and Spell Level.

But even so, Rangers (and Paladins) get heavily shafted here on item creation just like Rangers and Druids do on Cure spell casting (a pet peeve of mine ) and Cure Scrolls/Potions creation. A Cure Light Wounds Potion at D8+1 costs a Cleric 25 GP (100 GP for D8+4) and a Cure Moderate Potion at 2D8+3 costs a Cleric 150 GP whereas it costs a Ranger 200 GP for a Cure Light Potion at D8+4. 75% of the cost and an average of 140% of the healing (50% of the cost for the same healing D8+4 vs D8+4).

This is not really balanced IMO.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One quick point - the calculations are for determining market value. There's no need to include an additional x2 multiplier to determine market value.

He would definitely hire a Bard to help him on this.

And I see this as a good thing. There are certain casters who find particular forms of magic easier to create. If you want something that has to do with social interaction, bardic magic is the place to go. If you want to do something that has to do with healing, clerical magic is the way to go If you want something that has to do with blowing things up, clerical magic is the way to go.

OK, I'm joking with the last one ...

(like I said, I'm on pain medication and and making mistakes easily)

Here's to feeling better soon!

 

[Staffan]

Ah yes. WotC's "we totally screwed up some of the equations and are unwilling to fix them, so either use a similar item, or hack down the price yourself" rules.

This seems to be the core of your misunderstanding of the item costs. You think they started by making up equations for what things should cost, and then based item costs on those. That's wrong (except for "formula" items like scrolls). They started by setting prices on items, and then decided, "Hey, let's put in some guidelines for how much these things should cost." So the equations are secondary to the comparison method for item pricing.

 

[KarinsDad]

One quick point - the calculations are for determining market value. There's no need to include an additional x2 multiplier to determine market value.

It thought that too. However:

The Base Price on the Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values table (7-33) is used directly by the Summary of Magic Item Creation Costs table (7-32) to calculate the Magic Supplies Cost.

Unlike the Armor, Shield, Weapon, Potion, Scroll, and Wand entries, this is NOT multiplied by 1/2 to get the magic supplies cost when talking about Rods, Rings, and Wondrous Items.

Hence, the base cost there IS the Magics Supplies Cost AND the Base Cost (or at least the column implies that).

However, I think this is a typo (or at least misleading) since there is a sentence on page 283 that states that "Magic supplies for items is always half of the base price in gp and 1/25 in XP".

The sentence on page 284 states:

"An item's market price is the sum of the item cost, spell component costs, and the base price."

So, I think you are basically correct and the Magic Supplies Cost column is just incomplete in Table 7-32.

The bottom line is that:

Market Value = item cost + spell component costs + base price.
Creation Cost = item cost + spell component costs + magic supplies cost (or 1/2 base price).

Hence, Creation Cost is only equal to half of Market Value for items that do not have item cost or spell component cost.

At least, that is how it reads to me.

So, that is where my error came in. I was basing it off the table as opposed to the sentences (but I did not make that mistake yesterday because I only deduced that incorrectly today).

A friend of mine in the Editting field once mentioned that tables are better than text at relaying information because they do so much faster. However, when the tables are misleading or in error, they also relay false information faster.

Here's to feeling better soon!

Thanks. Surgery can mess up your mind more than your body.

 

[KarinsDad]

This seems to be the core of your misunderstanding of the item costs. You think they started by making up equations for what things should cost, and then based item costs on those. That's wrong (except for "formula" items like scrolls). They started by setting prices on items, and then decided, "Hey, let's put in some guidelines for how much these things should cost." So the equations are secondary to the comparison method for item pricing.

That's irrelevant.

The rules should model the game.

The rules should not be inaccurate emulations of a fraction of the game. If they are, fix them. Inaccuracy just leads to a lot of worthless and unnecessary questions that should never be asked.

I see this in the programming field all of the time. People prefer to code first (often under the guise of prototyping and not throwing away the prototype) and write up design later that matches the code. It is only then that they discover bugs in their design because they did not design first, rather they hacked code first.

 

[dcollins]

Right. In 3E:

If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require...

Note that that was post-errata for 3.0.
- 3.0 as published: "need not" provide components.
- 3.0 after errata: "and must" provide components.
- 3.5 as published: "need not" provide components.
Guess what comes next?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Guess what comes next?

A designer saying that if you read the DMG carefully, it actually means you must provide components, it's just worded ambiguously?

-Hyp.